[Posted by
mrjitty on last thread]
So, let me get this straight.
There were THREE (3) people (JM + plus 2 assessors), each of whom were understood to have exceptional legal knowledge, understanding, and experience, etc, who took ONE (1) month to come up with an illogical, inarticulate, incomplete, nonsensical verdict , major points of which had little-to-no relevance to current SA law, the evidence, or minimal common sense?
Mannie Witz, an advocate
at the Johannesburg Bar, says Mazibuko is fresh out of university and comes from an academic background. Other than that, little is known about him.
Henzen-du Toit
is well known as an advocate who has defended murders and rapes, says Witz. She joined the Pretoria Bar in 1998, before leaving for the Rebel Bar in North West in 2003. She became a member of the National Forum of Advocates in 2005 and also presided over trials as an assessor during this period. In 2006, she returned to Pretoria and joined the Legal Aid Board. In 2010, she became a unit manager in the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.
A profile of Henzen-du Toit published by Beeld newspaper earlier this month pointed out that she was an expert in criminal justice. She has an Honours degree in psychology and Master's degree in criminal justice and criminal prosecution. She is working on a doctorate in criminal law, criminal prosecution, evidence and constitutional interpretation.
The assessors are only there to help the judge decide the verdict. "They are only meant to try on the facts and can overrule the judge, but they can only overrule her on the facts. When it comes to sentencing they play no role whatsoever.
According to Professor Annette van der Merwe, a criminal procedure law expert at the University of Pretoria, if the two assessors were to rule in favour of murder, or the judge and one assessor were to rule so, that verdict would be the accepted one. The same would apply if two of them were to rule in favour of an acquittal.
Masipa pointed out in her judgment that the verdict was a unanimous decision. The male assessor never uttered a word during the trial, however Henzen du Toit whispered to Masipa from time to time. When Masipa delivered her judgment it appeared as though she was reading it for the first time. She paused occasionally and said, Ill rephrase that, and made notes before continuing on. I have never ever seen this done in an Australian court. Someone said later that day that he/she had seen many judgments handed down by Masipa in the past and the wording seemed different to that which she normally used. This gave rise to speculation that Henzen du Toit may have been the person who actually wrote it with input from Masipa rather than the other way around.
More info in thread.
http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/democracy/3759-assessors-can-decide-pistorius-s-fate